Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Ray,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de
>Ray Hunter
>Envoyé : vendredi 6 septembre 2013 16:33
>À : Gert Doering
>Cc : [e-mail] WG; IETF Discussion
>Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-
>04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile
>Devices) to Informational RFC
>
>
>Gert Doering wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:25:17PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>>> Sure, but the majority are mandatory, and don't forget that some of
>them
>>>> are quite large (e.g., "implement RFC 6204"). Also, I believe it's not
>the
>>>> IETF's role to produce vendor requirements documents. The
>considerations
>>>> that the IETF deals with are primarily technical, and "we want this
>stuff
>>>> from our vendors" is not a technical issue.****
>>>>
>>>> *[Med] With all due respect, you are keeping the same argument since
>the
>>>> initial call for adoption and you seem ignore we are not in that stage.
>>>> That?s not fair at all.*
>>>>
>>> I'm just saying it here so that everyone in the community can see it. If
>>> it's an IETF document it has to have IETF consensus, and since I feel
>that
>>> the arguments were not properly taken into account in the WG (read:
>>> ignored), I think it's important that the community see them before we
>>> publish this document.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Gert Doering
>>         -- NetMaster
>
>I know I'm formally a couple of days late on the WGLC (work!).
[Med] This was an IETF LC not WGLC... 

>
>I agree with Lorenzo.
>
>And in any case it isn't ready to ship IMHO. e.g. How can REQ#33 and
>REQ#34 be enforced by a manufacturer (during compliance testing)?

[Med] This can be part of the test campaigns to assess the behavior of applications shipped with the device. This is in particular important for the applications made available by the device vendor itself. For example, our teams tested a device which can get IPv6 connectivity...but the user cannot use the store from that vendor to get applications in IPv6-mode. There are other applications which make use of IPv4 address literals, etc. The requirements is valid for applications dev'ed by the vendor or a third-party.